Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 8, 2014 5:00am-5:31am PDT

5:00 am
going to ask the members - the members of the public to please be quote while we're license to the speakers. with that, supervisor campos >> mr. president, i certainly look forward to making sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to present their case. i do want to follow up on your presentation. because i have to say i find of the argument from planning to be circle last year in and a half are want to begin by asking you how it is that you can define the project that's simply about data collection when, in fact, the pilot as i understand is a 18 most pilot that allows 2
5:01 am
hundred stops it includes buses stopping at the 2 hundred stops and collecting people. so how is that a project that be only involves data collection? >> the buses that are stopping at the up to two hundred locations are already doing so from our purposes the project we're analyzing for the affects e effects is the spooks of the involved changes to the continues the sequa review is that the aspect that's involving change to existing conditions. we're elevated the project opposed by sfmta. it's up to the project sponsor to define what the project
5:02 am
entails we then review that and the approving body approves the body as going through the public review >> there's 2 hundred stops proposed correct? >> no specific stops are proposed under the pilot. >> oh, okay. are are there stops that are currently not being used for they're not shuttles but could actually be new stops under the pilot. >> we have no basis for this assumption and that gets to the issue at hand the reasons that mta is undertaking those they have no certainly or regulate what stops are being used by
5:03 am
shuttles. >> it that possible that the pilot will - >> i can't answer that question. >> let me ask the mta is it possible director reiskin that in fact the two hundred stops your using there will be new stops currently not being used by shuttles. >> good evening mr. president, and members of the board through the chair supervisor campos. yeah, it's our intent to elevate the potential stop locations within the 2 hundred and subject them to the public hearing process. >> okay in light of the fact the
5:04 am
mta is seeing that the pilot could include now stops that are currently not being used by shuttles how can you say that the baseline is not being changed you're hearing from the agency something different could, in fact, be parted of the pilot and. >> we only had the project as proposed before us to analyze. so what we were analyzing the imposition of the project that i described it and as mta will describe it as the existing on the ground conditions the project itself which would identify those stops as one component of it and track the compliance with the stop network and with the operational
5:05 am
protocols provided that in itself is not something we can contributed physical impacts to >> again, i building what is a distortion of what the defines of an existing condition is. it would be one thing in the pilot is saying we're allowing the stops that are being iced but the mta is saying there could be new stops not seeing any new shuttles i don't think that's the same i want to note that but i want to proceed to another point. the section that your referencing is the section 6 exemption says, you know, and you read it and it talked about data collection and research
5:06 am
examiner data those will be strictly for information gathering purposes where to an action which a public agency has not approved adapted or fund those would be strictly this is clearly strictly means something more only that. how is it that p a pilot it involving shuttles picking up people and dropping them off it's not i mean can meet the definition of strictly for information gathering purposes? >> my first response is that there is a qualityer or as part of the study leading to an action so what the language of the sequa is saying it could be for a stand alone effort or part
5:07 am
of a long term effort. the picking up and dropping off of passengers is not a aspect of the project that was succinct e subject to sfmta action. the aspect the project that was subject to sfmta approval and therefore the project we elevated under sequa was the permit program and the installation of gps tracking device and it should to be reviewed under sequa and that was the project that sfmta board had authority over >> i'm sorry but i don't respectfully i think that belies with what's happening her. the pilot is simply not about collecting data the pilot
5:08 am
involves people being picked up and taken to work. and so, you know, you can say rope what you said until your blue in the face it doesn't change the reality of 2 hundred stops where people are being picked up and dropped off at work. it doesn't change the reality >> well, the picking up people and dropping off people is not a situation particularly in a urban std that's an unusual circumstances that results in impacts under sequa. we're looking at this as a defined 18 month data gathering effort that was the project that was proposed to us for environmental review any further
5:09 am
long term effort be it a policy or a physical changes at the bus stop over and over designation or lack thereof that is proposed as a permanent measure is subject to its own environmental review we'll consider the issues that are appropriate within that environmental review context >> okay. you heard from the mta director that, in fact, there maybe new stops that are currently not being used as stops new locations does that change our analysis in any way? >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear the middle part of your question. >> that the 2 hundred stops they're part of the pilot may
5:10 am
include places where there are no places for constitutes but are new stops does that change our analysis. >> mta does not have a competitive inventory of stops being used by shuttles and there's no way to on that without designating stops for used by shuttles. identifying stops and moving them around is part of the experimental management effort that's been analyzed and proposed. again, i just respectfully disagree it's comical you're saying you don't know of the impacts because you don't know where the stops are going to be it belikewise the question how do you know there's no environmental impact since we
5:11 am
don't know where the stops are going to be. let me ask you another question in the language of the section for the categorical exemption it talks about the elevation activity which does not result in a serious or major disturbance of a result i want to founded the process you have for the project does not result in a major disservice to an environmental resource let me ask you. if any muni riders interviewed were they interviewed as part that this analysis >> the mta harassed impaneled in a public effort to design this program they can speak to
5:12 am
that. >> was there any interviews of muni riders in terms of the deciding who there was a serious major impact. >> supervisor campos through the chair. i'm not sure there was outreach to the operators for that specific question but in the process of developing the pilot we reached through all the aspects of the organizations of traffic engineers and the partners as well as the muni positions to understand what the potential impacts were and how we define the program >> again so i can clarify did you interview any muni riders? i'm sorry >> i'm sorry if i may. >> if you ride muni. >> i'm sorry if i may i'd like
5:13 am
to have my staff speak to the substance of that. >> okay. >> good evening carli pain with the sfmta the project manager. i am ♪ communication with muni riders and other san franciscans very frequently about counterpart shuttles. i receive e-mails dribble and e-mails that members of the board of supervisors forward to me with concerns complaints and questions. and in that avenue i often am trying to resolve the problems but have been telling me here's our proposed solution that we agree there's a problem and the feedback is we're do glad sfmta
5:14 am
is doing something and we've also been to public meetings to the sfmtas policy and governance committee and our citizen's advisory committee. in 2011 and 2012 describing the scope of the effort the information we've tried to collect and in 2013 here's the policy approach and again in 2014 here's the specific policy we've been to on the ta citizen's advisory committee and their plans and program committee describing the 2012 and 2013, the for the >> let me ask it a different woo. eave heard and i see that as ground zero you talked about this where you visited people from the public >> we didn't have community
5:15 am
meetings in addition spot politely we had a community meeting as part of the development of the staff network. >> but inometers in the castro or south of market before it was proposed. >> no, we didn't. >> in light of that how do you know since there's no communityometers how do he knows there's no serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource how do i know that. >> i'm going to defer to the planning department and the question of whether theres a serious or major disturbance whether it falls into the exemption class asking is one within the per view of the planning department and the environmental planning description of the department. the series or major disturbance
5:16 am
is different than all the other language used in sequa and is specifically not saying any type of impact it is considered significant under sequa. the shuttle pilot program adds a temporary program involving detainment activity of moving vehicles within a network does not have a potential in and of itself to regulate the activity to result in lasting serious damage to any environmental resource that's the determination that we made on the basis of what was described in the project. there was nothing contributeables to the project that was described that will
5:17 am
result in that level of damage >> let me ask it this way does the planning department building that the impacts on riders is a relevant analyze it doesn't matter what the riders think about this. >> the interaction of shuttle buses and riders is something to its something that will need to be considered under transportation analysis. when a project that doesn't quality for this exemption is proposed it's not a situation that disqualifies the project for this type of exemption it's not a damage to an environmental resource not a situation of usually circumstances, there are
5:18 am
ongoing conflicts around muni riders everyday >> how do you know that unless you've spoken to the riders that actually held muni meetings to talk about that. how do he knows that? >> for one thing that's an aspect we received information from muni partially in their materials their insinuated and partially otherwise that indicated all of their concerns around the shuttles. the issue of how shuttles interact with muni riders one of the primary reasons that muni wants to try an approach toward regulating this activity and find a way to regulate the
5:19 am
activity that will effectively reduce the conflicts. so we do very much understand the shuttle are creating inconvenience for muni riders they don't revises to the level of doing a pilot program of regulating shuttles wouldn't qualify for the exemption >> i don't think you know or can say those inconveniences revises to the level if you haven't talked to the people being inconvenience. i wanted to ask our deputy city attorney about the issue of illegal embattle we have a pilot that specifically allows those shuttles to essentially violate
5:20 am
a section of the vehicle code. and specifically section 225 hundred of the california vehicle code. is there an issue here legally with the pilot that allows those operators to essentially break state law? >> excuse me. deputy city attorney marla supervisor the policy merits of the sfmta to adapt the project as proposed are not at issue in the sequa appeal here today. the environmental review of that program and policy is at issue here >> i understand that but let me ask the gentleman mr. gibner is there do you have an opinion a as to who the city can allow a
5:21 am
private operators to break state law? does the city this the authority to tell those prioritizes they don't have to comply with the code >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. the as my colleague ms. burns stated that particular question is not before the board the legal authority and the mta is the city agency that has the jurisdiction to adapt the program. our city department worked with the program to authorize the program our office signed and approving the resolution just like all the ordinances before the board indicating that the mta does have legal authority to meet with the program
5:22 am
>> so it's the city attorney's office position to tell a private operator they can break the state law. >> that's certainly not what we would say there are a number of vehicle code regulations that law the red code to operate and advising the mta on this program we elevated those vehicles codes provisions including the code section that you sited and others and look at the code scheme and reached the conclusion that point mta has the authority to adapt this type of program. we're not signing off on a program if the city does not have the legal authority >> can you explain to me the reasoning behind that. let me put the question differently. so having heard you say that
5:23 am
does the mta have the legal short to say those participants can break state law specifically the state code but the rest of us have to imply with us does the mta have to decedent who complies with the state law >> that's not an adequate description of what i said. the mta is not arthur the violations the mta is authorizing the regulation of red zone and the mta is exercising that authority >> let me ask the mta what their 30 years her - here from the chair to the mta. i don't know who with the mta
5:24 am
are you going to enforce section 22 of the vehicle code against the shuttle operators? >> through the president supervisor campos i'm not familiar with the code you cited. our intents with the programs we're with owe are covering is to identify the stops that would be able to be assessed by shuttles that are participating in the permit program. and thereby rendering all other stops unavailable to anyone permitted provider or not. >> it's illegal under the vehicle code for people to park in those red zones. i guess the question is whether
5:25 am
it influences part of the 2 hundred stops with respect to the 2 hundred stopts that are part of the pilot are you going to enforced section 225 hundred and issue tickets to the operators >> i don't know what the code is but our understanding is the action that the municipal transportation agency board took as mr. gibner said it's not enabling anybody to violate the state law but gives mta the authority to allow the use of red zones and allow the use. is there someone at mta who knows the section of the code? again are you going to enforce this against the operators >> so the question would we be enforcing the part of the code
5:26 am
that says only southern kinds of transit i'm not an attorney so i'll ask the city attorney to weigh in and the exception made by agency to prohibits all other uses from stopping at red zones. so maintained from the city attorney's office is that they're creating an exception through the prosecutor permit >> i'm not asking about the legality will you enforce this code against the operators we can deal with the city attorney. >> are you asking during the pilot program we will be gore that code for the 2 hundred stops that are included in the network or everywhere else. >> the 2 hundred stops
5:27 am
>> yes. our muni investigators will be issuing tickets to those who don't have a permit that has been authorized by mta to use those zones. >> but if the operators pomegranates in the pilot you're not going to give tickets. >> the permit permits them to use the zones. >> will the private citizen use the zones. >> no. >> will you issue a ticket against private individuals. >> yes. >> so for the city of attorney's office how can the mta do that selectly enforce a section of the california vehicle code against one group but not against a the and and john gibner, deputy city attorney the best way to answer
5:28 am
that the mta has the authority to regulate the zones. and i'm not sure what more to exactly answer our question other than the vehicle code authorized the mta exercise cert regulatory authority this is one of them >> i'm going to leave it open my colleagues have other questions. >> thank you, supervisor i have two quick questions. we've been told by the criminalists advocates that if we support this appeal that will jeopardizes future programs could you describe how those programs to collect data and have any of our programs ever
5:29 am
been challenged successful on succeeding grounds in san francisco? >> certainly. we have issued class 6 exemptions for multiple project sponsored and sfmta addressing pedestrian safety and bicycle safety a recent example on ford street to 11th street for a proposal following a sizeable bicycle accidents and failed. there was a lane of traffic to be prohibited and the right turn changes to the street to provide protection for the bicyclists. we modeled the possibility for
5:30 am
there to be significant impacts related to level of service from the change in travel los angeles. the moving forward did not demonstrate any potential significant effects but we did feel that we there was a legitimate reason to see what was happening on the ground whether the desired results would occur and the undesired result would not occur we've used the class 6 exemptions that way and in which it allows us to see think 0 the ground efforts of trying something out there's concern about the possibility ever community investment & infrastructure commission to an action that leads to environmental impacts or concerns. so another example were also